Latest news with #Superinjunction
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Tory ex-ministers defend record as pressure mounts after Afghan data leak
Tory ex-ministers have sought to defend their record amid mounting pressure over the Afghan data leak that resulted in an unprecedented superinjunction and an £850 million secret relocation scheme. Members of the previous administration are distancing themselves from the handling of a breach which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul. Shadow justice secretary and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he first learned of the 2022 data breach after a legal gagging order had been put in place the following year. Former home secretary Suella Braverman said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials' and that she was not involved in the superinjunction decision. Ex-veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul but said it was 'absurd' to accuse him of failing to grasp the scale of the crisis. 'I know who is covering their tracks, and who has the courage to be honest,' he said. 'I would caution those who might attempt to rewrite history.' Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of an £850 million scheme set up after the leak, which was kept secret as a result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer insisted there would be scrutiny of the decision, telling MPs: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' Former prime minister Liz Truss, who was foreign secretary at the time of the breach in February 2022, but a backbencher when the superinjunction was sought, said she was 'shocked' by the 'cover-up'. She said the revelations pointed to a 'huge betrayal of public trust' and 'those responsible in both governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account'. Mr Mercer said: 'I've spilt my own blood fighting for a better Afghanistan, lost friends, fought to get operators out of the country and away from the Taliban, and visited hundreds of resettled families and hotels in the UK under direct commission from the previous prime minister after the schemes were dangerously failing. 'Others were with me in this process and we have all the receipts.' Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said he had 'strongly opposed plans to bring over' thousands of Afghan nationals during 'internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation' in December 2023. 'I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place,' he said. 'Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.' Mr Jenrick said the secret scheme had been 'a complete disaster' and that the previous government 'made serious mistakes' but that 'thousands more (Afghan people) have come since Labour came to power'. The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out plans for an inquiry straight after the parliamentary recess in September. A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. Then-defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he had applied for a four-month standard injunction shortly before leaving office but, on September 1 2023, when Grant Shapps took the role, the government was given a superinjunction. Mr Shapps has not yet publicly commented on the revelations. Sir Ben has insisted he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that.'
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Super-injunctions have no place in our judicial system
Super-injunctions are bad things. They suppress debate about matters that should be in the public domain by rendering unlawful even a reference to their very existence. These gagging orders have been used by footballers and actors to block disclosures about their private lives. But they had never before been used to block debate in parliament until the fiasco over the leak of the Afghan resettlement list. Ministers felt it necessary to seek an injunction to protect the lives of thousands of Afghan soldiers who fought alongside British troops during the war. Sir Ben Wallace, defence secretary in the Conservative government, said he did not apologise for making the court application and denied it was a 'cover-up' designed to spare departmental blushes. But the type of injunction that was granted was all-consuming. It allowed vast amounts of public money to be spent without parliament being informed, let alone consulted, while keeping the most senior ministers in the dark. Even the judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, called this unprecedented during hearings about the length of the gag. Super-injunctions have strayed far from tittle-tattle about cheating celebrities into serious matters of public policy. By definition we do not know whether others exist, or cannot say if we do. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer dumped the blame for the debacle on to the Tories since they were in office at the time. However, he did not say whether he would have done the same had the leak happened on his watch. Super-injunctions are pernicious devices that have no place in our judicial system. Secret justice is no justice at all.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Holy arbitration, Fatman! Starmer's superhero alter-ego is revealed
Super-injunction sounds like Keir Starmer's alias were he a Marvel hero. 'By day, he's a lawyer. By night… he's also a lawyer.' A woman falls from a tall building: Keir squeezes his belly into a leotard, flies to the scene, and arrives after she's hit the ground but in time to ask witnesses to sign a non-disclosure agreement. 'Holy arbitration, Fatman!' The caped headmaster was up for his last PMQs of the summer term, putting on his 'be sensible' scowl, handing out prizes for the best crawl or suck-up. Jacob Collier, resembling one of those cherubic middle-aged men who lie their way back into school, said Keir was handsome and clever, and 'I welcome Labour's warm home discount'. Indeed, replied the Holborn Porker, 'I met his constituent Nicola in her kitchen who told me how hard she's working to support her family.' She also asked: 'How did you get into my kitchen?' and 'Could you please leave?' The public is so anti-politics now that the only way to conduct a focus group is to secrete a minister into a voter's house and surprise them when they come down to breakfast. 'Before you call the police: how would you rate the economy, out of 10?' The polls don't bode well. One puts Labour neck-and-neck with a Corbyn-led party that hasn't been named or formed and we're not sure Corbyn actually wants to lead. This is the equivalent of drawing even with 'TBC' – although the Tories do little better and the Lib Dems are an asterisk. In a display of their utter lack of definition, Ed Davey first asked about anti-Semitism, then accused Israel of war crimes. He wants to have his babka and libel it. Kemi Badenoch offered Labour an end-of-term 'scorecard': higher taxes, rising unemployment, growing inflation. The PM dug deep into his repository of wit: '14 years... £22bn black 'ole... she comes here every week and she just talks the country down.' Kemi slapped back, 'I'm talking him down!' and demanded to know if taxes would rise. Starmer wouldn't say yes or no, which means yes. Sitting to one side, Angela Rayner thought: 'I want your job.' To the other, Rachel Reeves thought: 'Would someone please take my job?' Tory Graham Stuart described the Labour manifesto as 'beautifully written, deeply moving, and, like that other great blockbuster... The Salt Path, a total pack of lies.' Can the PM recommend 'a summer recess read?' Keir, who seems to have skimmed Animal Farm and assumed it was a utopia, pointed a finger at the vacant Tory benches and said the Opposition was 'already on its summer recess!' One suspects they are busy consulting their lawyers. Given the scale of the Afghanistan mess, it's staggering that only Davey asked about it, Starmer limiting himself to a brief swipe at 'Conservative management of this policy' that lacked feeling. Why is the Commons so complacent? Because the Tories don't want to fuss about an error they oversaw, and because politicians of all stripes love war and love immigration. This scandal ticks both boxes. No wonder Reform is the only option polling well, the anti-everything, smash-the-system vote, the party of clicks and giggles. Gregg Wallace for equalities minister? Only a matter of time.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Commons at pompous worst as Afghan data breach proves too much bother for Badenoch
For a moment it felt as if the dam might be about to burst. To let the anger in. On Tuesday, the Commons had been at its most pompous, most clubbable worst. Drowning in self-righteousness as the defence secretary, John Healey, gave a statement on the leaked Afghan email, the superinjunction and the £850m bill to the taxpayer. It was deeply regrettable, MPs on all sides agreed, but in the end probably just one of those things. Best to move on and not rock the boat. Parliament at its best and all that. On Wednesday, we got to hear Keir Starmer's view on the scandal in his opening remarks at prime minister's questions. He seemed to have moved on from Healey's acquiescent cover-up. Yes, Labour in opposition had shared the previous government's commitment to protecting Afghans who had worked for the UK army, but he had consistently warned of the Tories' handling of the crisis. The failings were manifold and former ministers had a great deal to answer for. The gloves were off. This was a party political issue. And that was the last we heard about the cover-up. Kemi Badenoch had nothing to say about it at all. Not even in passing. Maybe she didn't think it was that important. After all she couldn't be bothered to attend an urgent security briefing about it back in March. Yes, she is that lazy. She only got to find out on Monday. But then almost everything is too much bother for Kemi. God knows what would happen if she wound up in Downing Street. Luckily, no one is about to find out. Or maybe she didn't want to land Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps in it. On their watch, there had been several data breaches. It was almost embedded as part of the system. She could even have had a go at Robert Jenrick, who as immigration minister had been responsible for running a secret scheme to admit Afghans into the country while at the same time building a career based on hostility towards foreigners. Then Tories seem able to live with that level of hypocrisy. Whatever. Kemi kept silent. But what of the backbenchers? Surely one of them would have wanted to have their say on a cover-up that had not only been kept secret from parliament and the public but from the very people whose data had been leaked. I guess the thinking was it's best not to know if a Taliban death squad is after you. No. Not one of them. Not even Tory Lincoln Jopp, who picked up a Military Cross on active service and commanded the Scots guards in Afghanistan in 2010. Afghans? Lincoln didn't remember them. Not today. It makes you wonder why these people went into politics in the first place. Was it really to be lobby fodder for the whips? To do as they are told on the off-chance they get a promotion to minister or shadow minister? Is that the summit of their ambition? A gleaming red box and the occasional use of a shiny black limo? This was a huge, huge story. A government using a superinjunction for far longer than was necessary. Not to protect the men and women whose data had been leaked: that information had almost certainly ended up in the hands of the Taliban years ago. But to cover up the previous Tory government's blushes. Not just the leak but their embarrassment of running a secret immigration scheme at the time they were encouraging everyone to hate foreigners. So if not this, what do backbenchers care about? What will wake them from their comatose state? The kindest thing that can be said about the rest of this week's episode of PMQs was that it was like a third rate panto coming near to the end of its run with its two stars merely going through the motions. Affected anger, pre-cooked put-down and a general lack of interest. Summer recess can't come soon enough for Keir and Kemi. They have both long since run out of ideas. Just counting down the days till the Commons packs up on Tuesday. Kemi basically reused the same questions she had used at the last three PMQs. She may be a climate sceptic but she thinks highly of recycling her own ideas. Ideal for someone who has made a virtue of never doing more than was strictly necessary. Why go the extra mile when you can stay in bed picking fights on X? It also says a lot about her ambition. It hasn't been as if her last three outings at the dispatch box have been a great success. More like a scoreless draw. But we are where we are. Two leaders who would quite like to be anywhere but in the Commons on a Wednesday lunchtime. Kemi going on and on about how the economy had been in tiptop shape last summer and had been tanking steadily since Labour took over. Keir going on and on about the dreadful legacy Labour had been left and how things were now basically looking up. You could take your pick. Maybe things had never been that great and still weren't. Not for the first time, one of the more interesting contributions came from Ed Davey. He talked of war crimes in Gaza and suggested Benjamin Netanyahu should be hit with sanctions. Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights. He keeps saying how appalled he is, but his appalledness never reaches a level where he is actually moved to do anything about it. You can imagine him standing by an aid truck doing nothing while the IDF take pot shots at children, tears in his eyes as he says how appalled he is. The rest is best forgotten. Graham Stuart trying to be funny by comparing the Labour manifesto to The Salt Path and asking Starmer to name his summer read. It would be nice to report that Starmer said Taking the Lead by John Crace but he couldn't think that fast on his feet. Jopp also fancied himself as a comedian by suggesting Jofra Archer and the England Test win showed Labour needed more pace and less spin. A gag that died on its arse as it was spin bowler Shoaib Bashir who took the winning wicket. Recess can't come a minute too soon.
Sky News
7 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach
Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction. The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families - with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total. The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday - three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure. However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn. In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction. Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government. 2:46 Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle. Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. He said he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the data breach, adding: "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner." The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 - which can only now be revealed - to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan. Some 6,900 Afghans - comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents - are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme. This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach. The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents. 👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported. How did the data breach happen? The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021. The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor. A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach. It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list - only that the MoD lost control of the information. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. "It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. "A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups." The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted "to pursue potential legal action". It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list - about 10 to 15% - would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023. A superinjunction - preventing the reporting of the mistake - was imposed in September of that year. It meant the extraordinary - and costly - plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now. Sir Keir Starmer's government inherited the scandal. What is a superinjunction? In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information. However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself. Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm. They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage. Why was superinjunction lifted? An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant. It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban. The review said it was "unlikely to substantially change an individual's existing exposure given the volume of data already available". It also concluded that "it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting" and it is "therefore also unlikely that family members... will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears... in the dataset". This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted. Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach. He added: "Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service. "We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives." Latest MoD data breach While the MoD's data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first. Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened. Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021. In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the "egregious" breach could have been life-threatening.
